Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Filing 143

NOTICE of Change of Address by Jennifer A. Kash (Kash, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/11/2009)

Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Doc. 143

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 DAVID L. ANDERSON #149604 JACOB R. SORENSEN #209134 MARC H. AXELBAUM #209855 DANIEL J. RICHERT #232208 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER (admitted pro hac vice) BRADFORD A. BERENSON (admitted pro hac vice) EDWARD R. MCNICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice) DAVID LEE LAWSON (admitted pro hac vice) ERIC A. SHUMSKY #206124 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for the Cingular Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION In re: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION This Document Relates To: 06-5452-VRW 06-6222-VRW 06-6224-VRW 06-6253-VRW 06-6254-VRW 06-6570-VRW 07-0464-VRW MDL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW STIPULATION TO STAY CASES AGAINST CINGULAR

[Civil L.R. 6-2, 7-1(5), 7-12] Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.

RECITALS On January 31, 2006, Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No. 06-672-

VRW, was filed in this District. The Hepting complaint alleges, inter alia, that certain AT&T entities have cooperated with the National Security Agency ("NSA") in connection with a terrorist surveillance program. B. On May 11, 2006, USA Today published an article entitled "NSA has

massive database of Americans' phone calls," which alleges that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have provided customer call records to the NSA. Following the publication of this article, dozens of lawsuits were filed in various fora across the United States against a number of telecommunications entities. Among the named parties in these lawsuits were the following entities: Cingular Wireless LLC (now known as AT&T Mobility LLC), New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., and Cingular Wireless Corporation (now known as AT&T Mobility Corporation) (collectively, the "Cingular Entities"). C. On July 20, 2006, this Court entered an order in Hepting denying motions to

dismiss filed by the United States of America and AT&T Corp. (the "Hepting Ruling"). This Court certified the Hepting Ruling for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Both the United States and AT&T Corp. petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the Hepting Ruling, and the Hepting plaintiffs filed a cross-petition. D. On August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("JPML")

entered its Transfer Order creating this MDL and transferring cases to this Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Since the August 9, 2006 Initial Transfer Order, the JPML has entered additional transfer orders, transferring additional cases to this Court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. E. Entities are: 06-5452-VRW, Harrington v. AT&T, Inc. 06-6222-VRW, Cross v. AT&T Communications, Inc. -2Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

The cases transferred into the MDL that have been filed against the Cingular

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

06-6224-VRW, Cross v. AT&T Communications of California Inc. 06-6253-VRW, Derosier v. Cingular Wireless LLC 06-6254-VRW, Crockett v. Verizon Wireless 06-6570-VRW, Chulsky v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 07-0464-VRW, Lebow et al v. BellSouth Corporation F. On November 7, 2006, the Ninth Circuit granted the petitions of the United

States and AT&T Corp. to appeal the Hepting Ruling. G. On November 17, 2006, this Court held an MDL Case Management

Conference where, inter alia, it was ordered that Plaintiffs would file master consolidated complaints against various defendant groups including against the Cingular Entities. H. On January 16, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints against the

Cingular Entities. I. In furtherance of judicial economy, the plaintiffs' counsel for the subscribers

to the Cingular Entities, and the Cingular Entities wish to stay all proceedings against the Cingular Entities pending the final adjudication of all appeals of the Hepting Ruling, including disposition of any petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, without any prejudice to the rights of any party. STIPULATION The plaintiffs' counsel for the subscribers to the Cingular Entities and the Cingular Entities hereby stipulate as follows: 1. All proceedings against the Cingular Entities shall be stayed pending the

final appellate ruling on the July 20, 2006, Hepting Ruling, including the disposition of any petition for certiorari (or the expiration of time to seek such a petition) from the United States Supreme Court for review of any decision the Ninth Circuit issues in its interlocutory review of the Hepting ruling. This stay shall encompass any proceedings against the Cingular Entities transferred by the JPML to this Court and consolidated with this MDL subsequent to the entry of this Stipulation.

-3-

Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

This stay shall in no way affect any MDL proceedings against entities other

than the Cingular Entities. 3. This stay shall not affect the substantive and other procedural rights of the

Cingular Entities or of the subscribers who have filed complaints against them. 4. The Cingular Entities need not file any pleading responding to the

consolidated complaints against each of them until sixty (60) days after the expiration of this stay. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // -4Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B I, BRUCE A. ERICSON, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, § X.B, that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each of the other signatories listed below. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. Executed on February 1, 2007, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Dated: February 1, 2007. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP BRUCE A. ERICSON DAVID L. ANDERSON JACOB R. SORENSEN MARC H. AXELBAUM DANIEL J. RICHERT 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP DAVID W. CARPENTER DAVID L. LAWSON BRADFORD A. BERENSON EDWARD R. McNICHOLAS 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 /s/ Bruce A. Ericson Bruce A. Ericson Attorneys for the Cingular Defendants GEORGE & BROTHERS R. JAMES GEORGE, JR. D. DOUGLAS BROTHERS 1100 Norwood Tower 114 W. 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] /s/ R. James George, Jr. per G.O. 45 R. James George Jr. Interim Class Counsel for the Cingular Subscriber Class -5Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW

By

By

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court orders the following: 1. All proceedings against Cingular Wireless LLC (now known as AT&T

Mobility LLC), New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., Cingular Wireless Corporation (now known as AT&T Mobility Corporation) (collectively, the "Cingular Defendants") in this MDL, including those proceedings transferred to this Court by the JPML and consolidated with this MDL subsequent to entry of this Order, are hereby stayed pending the final appellate ruling on this Court's July 20, 2006 ruling in Hepting, et. al v. AT&T Corp., et. al., including the disposition of any petition for certiorari (or the expiration of time to seek such a petition) from the United States Supreme Court for review of any decision the Ninth Circuit issues in its interlocutory review of that Hepting ruling. 2. This stay shall in no way affect any MDL proceedings against entities other

than the Cingular Defendants. 3. The Cingular Defendants need not file pleadings responsive to the

consolidated complaints against them until sixty (60) days after the expiration of this stay. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February __, 2007.

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker United States District Chief Judge

-6-

Stipulation to Stay Cases Against Wireless Carriers MDL No. 06-1791-VRW